Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

3.43 from above, I replaced Hogan Lovells at 6 yeah Fried Frank at 19 and moved everything else up 1 accordingly. Hogan gave 10 offers and Fried gave like 20. Even if Hogan is a better fit, I prefer the breathing room it gives the larger class size firms below. Not married to the change, however, because Hogan would be preferable and the Fried Frank reception was kinda sucky FWIW.

Anonymous User wrote:3.43 from above, I replaced Hogan Lovells at 6 yeah Fried Frank at 19 and moved everything else up 1 accordingly. Hogan gave 10 offers and Fried gave like 20. Even if Hogan is a better fit, I prefer the breathing room it gives the larger class size firms below. Not married to the change, however, because Hogan would be preferable and the Fried Frank reception was kinda sucky FWIW.

-Captain Fire

Where did you see that Fried gave 20 offers? I see 11, just one more than Hogan. Both gave about 20 callbacks.

I haven't checked again, but I may have just misremembered and conflated their bid number with how many offers they gave. Good catch! I'm not sure if it changes my calculus if I want to be safer. I would prefer Hogan Lovells to Fried Frank, esp for litigation but I am still concerned that adding them makes my list too 'tight'

TheoO wrote:Law firms reach for that "Stone Scholar" on the associate bio.

Sure but it's incredibly easy to pick that up as a 2L or 3L with seminars and fluff classes. Someone who barely misses stone as a 1L could hit that exact same position in the class and roll out a 3.5. So they'll have Stone for their firm bio anyway, who cares what year it was in.

Anonymous User wrote:Tiago, I disagree. My year there was a big delta in outcomes between low-Stone and no-Stone. It may be irrational but it does matter.

Maybe it just depends on the people we know. I know some low-Stone people who just squeaked by and some people who just missed Stone who seemed to kill it. In those cases it might have been that the non-Stone people had more realistic expectations and didn't overreach.

ProfBono wrote:The transcript that you hand employers indicates Stone or not Stone. For employers who do not pull out calculators (I presume most of them), this is probably a measuring point that they use.

Anonymous User wrote:Are any firms other than Wachtell and W&C (DC) totally unrealistic for a 3.56? Obviously Gibson DC, Covington DC, etc. are still long-shots, but are they complete wastes of bids?

those firms, in addition to WilmerHale, are certainly long-shots, but no, probably not a complete waste as long as your list has some safe choices. Do not fill up your bid list with DC firms, even as Stone. Have some large class NYC like Simpson, Debevoise, Cravath, Davis Polk, Kirkland, Skadden and maybe a few unselective firms as well.

I think it's also fair to say Munger Tolles and Irell Manella in CA are totally unrealistic with that GPA, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in that coast anyway